Czére Andrea szerk.: A Szépművészeti Múzeum közleményei 105. (Budapest, 2006)
MARIANNA DÁGI: Training the Eye: Technical Details as Clues in the Attribution of Ancient Jewellery
attribution, forms resulting from characteristic automatisms, marks left by characteristic tooluse, and particular details whose execution points to the maker's meticulousness, or which test the very limits of his physical abilities, can all facilitate the identification of particular hands. A technical trick can, however, be a characteristic feature not only of individual goldsmiths, but also of particular places of production. It seems highly likely that in a single place ancient goldsmiths, like their modern counterparts, used the same solution to a particular technical problem or made the same structural element or particular part in the same way. The invention of a technical trick (e.g. the "narrowing cut" discussed above), the design or construction of a structural element (e.g. the connecting element, the hoop) or a small detail (e.g. the bull's eye), can be ascribed to one of the goldsmiths at work in a given place of production, from whom the others will then have acquired and used it. 1 " This means that a particular technical trick can be typical either of a single goldsmith employed in a specific place of production, and also, at the same time, be distinctive of that place of production as a whole. Once tried and proven, a technical solution might be adopted by other places of production as well, and with time become characteristic of the production of an entire region. Going on, a technical trick or concept could migrate even farther from its place of origin, together with a goldsmith who knew it. : " Technical details can help to assist and corroborate the attribution of ancient jewellery to specific workshops and particular hands. The testimony they provide must, however, be treated with considerable care, for reasons connected to the nature of the goldsmith's craft. While, for example, particular forms and shapes whose manufacture depended on well-practiced automatisms point naturally to their creators, in the case of parts made separately (e.g. the catchring, or long arches on our pieces) these can be attributed either to the hand of the goldsmith who made the whole piece, or to the one who made the given part. Two factors will have influenced the identity or difference of the two hands. These are: (1) the character of the piece (individual or series-produced) and (2) the organisational structure of the place of production. It is more likely that the making of series-produced pieces was organised according to a certain division of labour, than might be true in the case of individual pieces. That is to say: the particular parts were made up in advance by one of the employees, and then used by all the goldsmiths in producing their pieces. Thus it is at least possible that a single piece of seriesproduced jewellery might show r the hand of more than one goldsmith. It seems more likely, however, that the production of each particular jewellery-type (a given type or a version of a given type) made in a certain place of production will have been the responsibility, from start to finish, of a given person, even if the possibility of a division of labour cannot be wholly excluded for now. The available evidence is still much too weak to permit any firm conclusions. 21
